New rule makes it easier to hand off public lands

a reply to: MOMof3

So if your house catches on fire and fire departments from surrounding towns are required to help bring it under control. ...You think they should stand down?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

You're exactly right. ...that's why I am happy to hear this.

Funny how almost nobody objected, or even noticed, when Al Gore facilitated the largest privatization of federal land in history for his big oil buddies who were responsible for his family's massive wealth.

And unlike the farce in North Dakota, this was bonafide Indian sacred land.

The history of the Gore family and Occidental Petroleum have been intertwined for generations. Al Gore Sr. was such a loyal political ally that Occidental’s founder and longtime CEO, Armand Hammer, liked to say that he had Gore "in my back pocket." When Gore Sr. left the Senate in 1970, Hammer gave him a half a million dollar a year job at an Occidental subsidiary and a seat on the company’s board of directors. Money from Occidental and its subsidiaries formed the basis of the Gore family fortune.

But it is not only the land of Indigenous Colombians that Occidental is drilling against the wishes of the residents and indigenous inhabitants. In late 1997, Al Gore supported the federal government’s three and a half billion dollar sale of the Elk Hills oil field in Bakersfield, California, to Occidental Petroleum. This was the largest privatization of federal property in US history. Occidental’s plans to drill for oil in Elk Hills will disturb traditional burial sites for the Yokuts indigenous peoples of southern California. At stake are at least 100 ancient sites in the Buena Vista Lake region where Yokuts peoples once lived.

www.democracynow.org...

a reply to: HarryJoy

The nw states are not flat topography and sprawling rural towns and cities. How far do you think fire trucks can go into the wilderness and mountains?

a reply to: MOMof3

My point was....even if land is under the control of the states....why would all of us not want to see the federal government help put out a fire that was too big for that state's resources to handle ? Preserving the earth is all of our responsibility....I agree ...but I believe that the people that live nearest to any particular piece of land would have the greatest vested interest in how that land is used.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Funny how almost nobody objected, or even noticed, when Al Gore facilitated the largest privatization of federal land in history for his big oil buddies who were responsible for his family's massive wealth.

Your source says "supported" the sale, not facilitated. But yes, Occidental was the highest bidder on land which the government acquired for the purpose of maintaining oil reserves. The Government had wanted to sell the land since the Reagan administration.
articles.latimes.com...

The Energy Department sold the property to Occidental for $3.65 billion in cash through a competitive bidding process that drew 22 offers. Department officials said Occidental's price was twice the next-highest bid and double what the government had estimated. The sale was announced in October 1997 and completed in February 1998.

www.nytimes.com...


And, quite a few people noticed. Actually.
www.tulsaworld.com...

a reply to: MOMof3

And here's the thing. The party that now controls all three branches of the federal govt and about half of the state govts is the party whose goal now is to make govt small enough to drown it in a bath tub. Fire control will be turned over to the states, especially once all that public forest land no longer belongs to the fed govt. And fire control, like most govt functions, will be totally privatized.

a reply to: desert

I wonder if they'll also do it for natural disasters like hurricanes. Hmmm...

a reply to: HarryJoy

They don't use it. They put up no trespassing signs and fences. This is what happened in Idaho recently. Idahoans are not use to it but they better get use to being cut off from the rivers and favorite hunting grounds.

"“All of a sudden, they denied access,” Simpson said of the Wilks brothers. “All of a sudden, people couldn’t access their favorite fishing hole or hunting ground.

Read more here: www.idahostatesman.com...=cpy

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yes. Their idea is that profit and non-profit can handle disasters better than any govt organization. FEMA would be dismantled. Since you don't get something for nothing, people have to understand that there would no longer be services provided unless paid for. Right now tax dollars pay for things like FEMA, but where would the money come from for the private services? That I don't have an answer to. Is it buying an insurance plan? I don't know. "User fees"?

A couple decades ago my sister was all for no taxes, until she had to end up writing a check for her kids' school bus service. Her district no longer bused kids to school, it had been privatized.

you`re completely wrong, it doesn`t mean they can give public lands to private companies for free.

It facilitates the transfer of land from the federal government to the local government where people will have a larger voice in the management of their lands. Washington bureaucrats don’t listen to people. Local governments do.”

nowhere does it say anything about giving public lands to private corporations.
you either have horrible reading comprehension or you are deliberately lying.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: MOMof3

...but I believe that the people that live nearest to any particular piece of land would have the greatest vested interest in how that land is used.

gee, it must be nice living in Mayberry RFD, how's Goober and aunt Bea? State corruption and greed is as rampant as anywhere else. The monied corps will steamroll the public till they have no interest in what were once public lands.
My once public fishing streams [BLM] are now fenced and accessible only by permit. $50 bucks. Colorado.

I can't believe that you are so naive to even make such a post. Quick way to lose credibility with such a transparent agenda.

One last thing, with no govt to provide regulations, the idea is that if a corporation who buys the land to extract resources and ends up polluting air, ground, or water for either you as an individual or for a town, the idea is to take the business to court. Under the new ideology, your "right" to clean air, ground, water is violated, so you take the matter to court to prove your case and let a court system decide if your "rights" were violated. Again, ask the good people of Louisiana how that system has worked out, individuals suing corporations over pollution.

a reply to: MOMof3

Ok...I looked at the article about the Idaho land. First of all the title ( Do 2 Texas billionaires now own a huge chunk of S Idaho ? ) Is a bit misleading..the piece of land in question is 172,000 acres. There are 57.1 million acres in Idaho. So if we call S Idaho half that means the piece of land in question is 6/10s of 1 percent of S Idaho....I wouldn't call that a huge chunk of S Idaho.

But I don't know where I stand on the issue of privatization of public lands....because just as Enlightenedservant said. ...non profits could be formed and pieces of land could be brought more directly under the control of people that had a strong desire to see these lands used in good ways.

a reply to: olaru12

Wow.....so how long is that permit good for ??
Over here in Mayberry I had to pay $170 to camp in a state park for a week.

a reply to: HarryJoy

If your plan were their plan, great. But it is not. I would try to explain further, but I know it would be futile. Anyway, the billionaires have it all now. And I have a big lump in my throat.

how do you get that making making federal land more available to the state's in which the land is.....will mean it's more likely to lead to oil exploration and clear cutting

Are you joking? Are you aware that most Republicans get a huge amount of their funding from energy and mining companies? The ONLY reason they want this is to rape the land for a bunch of money, Republicans have no other concern when it comes to land.

a reply to: CB328

When a lot of these lands went under federal control...everyone was screaming the same thing. Now they are reverting back to state control and people are still screaming the same thing....??

States now have trouble funding land they currently hold. Taking over federal land is meant to be a budget fix for states, as they can then either sell land outright or sell rights to extract resources.

One instance of a sale

Utah Sells Critical Desert Land to Farm Corporation

SITLA board chairman Steven Ostler shrugged. “When SITLA lands are involved, the board has no other job than to maximize the value of the trust,”he said.
....
Lyman Family Farms also bought 200 acres near Zion National Park and outbid Salt Lake climber Niels Tietze, who was trying to buy 180 acres near the crack climbing mecca of Indian Creek. He was using money left to him by his deceased brothers and intending living off the land. Lyman outbid him, paying $270,000.

An individual or non-profit has to compete against corporate money, whether or not a sale or lease or extraction rights.

a reply to: desert

Sounds like the two options were...let the land become a climbing resort...or a farm.